Well I decided that whilst a polarizing filter has its uses (PF I will call it now), the real problem for me was that too many are at it all the time!

Now I am not one to tell others what to do, its a personal choice..but I find that for me its just too overcooked. I fully expect to get some stick, just as I said this to some serious landscapers I know..they called me "insane"..but for me its working out ok. I dont have to live with the "pacific blue sky" look anymore...I get nice "natural" looking ones..

I also take care to be timid with pp as well, not to overdo things too much..

I somewhat agree, Barry. I have almost completely eliminated using a polarizer for shots including the sky (esp. with wide angle lenses), but still use one almost universally for removing glare off foliage (esp. after rain) or the surface of water.

I still would call one indispensible for colour photography - if not abused, as Graeme mentioned.

> So when I hear about how essential a PF is...no its not! handy yes...not essential IMHO.

I agree -if- you have the luxury of waiting for the right conditions. I almost never use one and normally don't even carry it, but if the conditions aren't right I don't shoot, or shoot different subject matter where it doesn't matter. OTOH if you're in an area for only a day or two and have to accept the conditions, it can be a life saver.

But I agree that like a lot of things, it tends to get overabused. If conditions are good it only gives an artificial feel (like watching CSI Miami).

I'd agree with these posters, any filter (pre- or post-capture), or exposure settings/focal length/type of film, etc. is a creative choice by yourself (the photographer). Forget about the rules, just do what you think looks good to you...

"Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph, is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk." -Edward Weston

The real question here is; can the effects of a polarizing filter be duplicated in Photoshop, when shooting RAW? The darkening of a blue sky can certainly be duplicated in PS, but what about the reduction of shiny reflections from water and metallic surfaces? I haven't made any direct comparisons, but it seems to be a fact that an ACR conversion with a -4EC adjustment into ProPhoto RGB and 16 bit TIF (usually resulting in an extremely dark image) will retain the full tonality and detail of the RAW image. All that remains is to brighten the image, applying a tone curve or whatever, whilst retaining maximum highlight detail in those shiny, blown reflections.

I suspect the advantages of a polarizer, for someone au fait with most of photoshop's processing options, would be very slight.

The real question here is; can the effects of a polarizing filter be duplicated in Photoshop, when shooting RAW? The darkening of a blue sky can certainly be duplicated in PS, but what about the reduction of shiny reflections from water and metallic surfaces? I haven't made any direct comparisons, but it seems to be a fact that an ACR conversion with a -4EC adjustment into ProPhoto RGB and 16 bit TIF (usually resulting in an extremely dark image) will retain the full tonality and detail of the RAW image. All that remains is to brighten the image, applying a tone curve or whatever, whilst retaining maximum highlight detail in those shiny, blown reflections.

I suspect the advantages of a polarizer, for someone au fait with most of photoshop's processing options, would be very slight.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One of the main reasons I use a PF is to reduce or eliminate unwanted reflections in water, thus allowing one to see what's underneath the surface. Ditto for glass window reflections. Photoshop would be of no use in this respect.

One of the main reasons I use a PF is to reduce or eliminate unwanted reflections in water, thus allowing one to see what's underneath the surface. Ditto for glass window reflections. Photoshop would be of no use in this respect.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=67982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good point! But you also have to be careful you don't eliminate wanted reflections, as in the following shot.

[attachment=682:attachment]

Perhaps a polarizer would have been of no benefit in the following shot also, but I'm not sure. If circular polarizers were easier to remove, I might try them more often.

Without a polarizing filter, my photos don't look the same as the scene did through my sunglasses![a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=68085\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

lol... I have to remember to shift my sunglasses to see what the 'real' scene looks like because I have polarising lenses. Sometimes I forget, and am baffled -momentarily- as to why the image looked different than I recalled. Julie